Re: [ipwave] Risks for the future of OCB mode at 5.9GHz

[Rex Buddenberg <[e-mail]>]

The cellphone in my pocket (and probably yours) have both LTE and WiFi
interfaces. 


On Mon, 2021-02-15 at 12:37 +0100, Alexandre Petrescu wrote:
> A colleague pointed me to a video presentation of the problem of ITS-
> G5
> vs C-V2X of January 21, 2021.  The presentation is brief.  It
> describes
> this DSRC-vs-5G to be a problem because there are two standards, too
> complex for deployers, and there is uncertainty for vehicle
> users.  IMHO
> this uncertainty means : should I buy a Ford (C-V2X) or a VW (ITS-
> G5).
> The presenter gives his oppinion: probably C-V2X will win.
> 
> Starting at around 21:02 (21min, 2 seconds) and lasts for about 2
> minutes:
> 
> https://www.real-wireless.com/predicting-2021-trends-connectivity-ins
> ight-from-real-wireless/
> 
> It is interesting to note how he compares the problem to the VHS vs
> Betacam (presumably 5G is more of VHS, and ITS-G5/DSRC more of
> Betacam).
>   Certainly, in around 1995 one would no longer work on anything
> Betacam.
>   But they were both overcome by DVD and Bluray later, and now by 8K.
> 
> Also, the notion of direct communications in cellular systems (w/o
> base
> station) existed long before 5G's PC5: 3G tried it too but it did not
> work.  On another hand, in 3G there were no chips doing direct comm,
> no
> spectrum, but in 5G there are.
> 
> All in all, I am not sure how will this unfold.
> 
> Possibly one way forward is to consider IP:
> IP-over-PC5, and CAM-over-IP.
> 
> With IP tools at hand, the deployer would abstract from the DSRC-vs-
> PC5
> problem.
> 
> What do you think is a possible way forward in the DSRC-vs-PC5
> problem?
> 
> Alex
> 
> 
> Le 12/02/2021 à 11:51, Alexandre Petrescu a écrit :
> > 
> > I take advantage of a private message I received, in order to
> > explain
> > this in English, and to the public email list.
> > 
> > I have some doubts about the future of OCB mode of WiFi.
> > 
> > The recent re-allocation of spectrum by FCC in USA divides the
> > space
> >  typically used for OCB mode of 802.11 into a space for C-V2X (a 
> > different mode than 802.11) and a space for WiFi.
> > 
> > The C-V2X already ate the OCB mode at cca 5.8-5.9GHz, by
> > allocation.
> >  The WiFi is highly likely to eat the OCB mode at cca 5.4-5.8GHz.
> > The
> > reason of this is that WiFi is always and will always be looking at
> > increasing the bandwidth; that increase can be achieved by widening
> > the bands.  This is what WiFi 6E does when claiming to offer
> > 4Gbit/s
> > at 6GHz ('6' is a coincidence).
> > 
> > In the past, what FCC did in USA at 5.9GHz was simply replicated
> > in 
> > Europe and other parts of the world.  Even if today much RSU 
> > deployment exists in Europe (refs available) that runs OCB at
> > 5.9GHz, and VW Golf 8s send CAMs to each other, many indicators
> > point
> > that it might be that these will disappear.  Such indicators are,
> > for example, lack of OCB mode in smartphones, pushes from industry 
> > alliance 5GAA towards 5G-V2X, lack of FCC reply to IPv6-over-OCB 
> > comment, and other declarations.
> > 
> > It is for these reasons that I tend to think the future of OCB
> > mode 
> > of 802.11 at around 5.9GHz is probably at risk.
> > 
> > Alex
> > 
> > _______________________________________________ its mailing list 
> > [e-mail] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/its
> _______________________________________________
> its mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/its